I've been seeing more and more people justifying Jaime's abrupt heel turn in episode 5, saying it's consistent with show!Jaime's characterization. I'm posting to show that episode 5!Jaime was inconsistent with not just book!Jaime, but also with how they've been portraying Jaime in the show, from season 1 all the way up to episode 4. Most of these stuff are from this season, just to better illustrate that D&D can't even keep their shit together from episode to episode.

​

In the Inside the Episode videos, D&D's justification for Jaime's actions are that he's "addicted" to Cersei. Now I doubt they've cracked open a psych book any more than they've touched a copy of AFFC, but regardless, they haven't actually shown Jaime being addicted to Cersei to the point of disregarding other people, especially Tyrion and Brienne. Sure he has made speeches about how he and Cersei are the only ones that matter, but his actions say a different story. When he freed Tyrion in direct defiance of Cersei, he didn't think Cersei was the only one who mattered. When he saved Brienne from rape, from the bear, and from Cersei herself (in s04e04, he tasks Brienne with finding Sansa after Cersei ranted about Sansa supposedly killing Joff, and cast aspersions against Brienne; I believe she called her a great cow), he didn't think Cersei was the only one who mattered.

Jaime claimed he would've murdered every man, woman, and child in Riverrun for Cersei but he didn't because of Brienne.

When he went North to fight against the dead, he didn't think Cersei was the only one who mattered. Nikolaj certainly thought so:

“My subjects as an actor was ‘This is it. I don’t believe in you anymore. I don’t believe in this, you and me. I don’t love you anymore.’ That’s how I played it.”

-Interview after season 7 finale aired.

And the script for S07E07 indicated that he was "never looking back (at King's Landing) again." Somewhere pre-production, D&D changed their plans for him but failed to write them down properly.

​

In episode 2 Jaime literally zoned out of a conversation where Tyrion was talking about ripping Cersei apart because he heard Brienne from a distance. He then proceeded to follow Brienne around with hearts in his eyes for the rest of the episde. This happened in this very season but we’re supposed to believe his ~addiction to Cersei was so great he just had to die with her?

This also happened after his trial, where he dropped all of Cersei's plans (recruiting the Golden Company using them to deal with whatever army's left after the war for dawn) on Dany's lap, knowing this can end in Cersei's death. But yeah, he was so addicted to her.

​

In addition to number 2, he talked to Tyrion about his past ruefully, like not denying that he was sleeping with his sister, but regretting that he did and he’s looking forward to a different future now.

​

4. “I never cared about the innocents”, “Nothing else matters, only us” - He literally helped save humanity two episodes ago. He looked happier than he’d ever been just from making Brienne laugh.

People say he regressed to his season 1 self but that is technically wrong. Season 1!Jaime has already killed the Mad King because he was going to blow up innocent people. Instead, D&D made Jaime worse than he ever was.

I can headcanon that his self-loathing and self-denial made him say these shit but this isn’t clear in show canon.

Additionally, the truth about his execution of Aerys is never brought up once this season, much like the bearpit rescue (they even erased Brienne's bear claw scars), which makes me feel like they’re trying to draw away attention from it because that messes with their Twincest is Best story.

​

If Jaime was running away from Winterfell to be with Cersei because she’s his One True Love, then it didn’t make sense for him to sleep with Brienne on the night he leaves. I know that "one knight stand" is a meme now but anyone who actually watched the episode knows that they have been sleeping with each other and living together for weeks or even a month, however long it took for Dany to prepare her army, ride for King's Landing, battle Euron, regroup in Dragonstone, parley with Cersei, and then get a raven sent to Winterfell to bring news.

Either one of these scenarios would have been would’ve made sense:

- If Cersei was his true love (and D&D certainly seemed to want us to believe so), he wouldn't have slept with Brienne that night. Actually he wouldn't have started a relationship with her at all if he wasn't sure as a huge part of his character is his fidelity.

- If he did love Brienne but he doesn’t believe he deserves to be happy while Cersei dies, he could have slept with Brienne to have one last memory of her and he doesn’t say shit like no one else mattering but him and Cersei in the next episode.

Instead we got a muddled combination of the two scenarios: Cersei is his true love but he’s not faithful to her, shitting on his previous characterization further.

​

The sequence of events that led to his decision to leave Winterfell also did not make sense. After the Medium-Sized Night, Jaime knew that Dany's next step was to claim King's Landing. Despite what the show tells you, Jaime is not stupid enough to not see that this can only end in Cersei's death, considering Dany still had two dragons. He remains at Winterfell with Brienne.

Bronn then comes in and says the odds still favor Dany, which means that Cersei will still likely end up dead. Jaime remains at Winterfell with Brienne.

Then they receive a raven saying that Rhaegal's been killed and Missandei captured. Now it looks like Cersei might win after all. Then Jaime leaves to save Cersei... from winning? Make it make sense.

​

And of course there's episode 5, where nothing that came out of Jaime's mouth made sense. I've already shown evidence that he cared about the innocents, and other people mattered to him, especially Brienne. But he seemed to have forgotten her entire existence in this episode. So does Tyrion, who one episode ago, claimed that he was happy for Jaime and his new relationship with Brienne. You can even argue that he was trying to get them together using that drinking game. But Brienne doesn't come up in this conversation whatsoever, not Tyrion asking Jaime why he ran away from a happy, functional relationship, nor Jaime claiming he doesn't deserve to be happy. Because if Brienne had been mentioned, then it would be even more obvious how nonsensical Jaime's last minute heel turn is.

​

Finally, going back to episode 2, when Jaime apologized to Bran claiming he's not the same man as he was, the all-knowing Bran agreed. Bran also said that he will not reveal Jaime's attempted murder to his siblings, because otherwise they will execute him, and Bran doesn't want that because Jaime was still "needed."

​

While Jaime fought valiantly in the battle against the undead, he didn't play a crucial role to their victory either, like Theon, Beric, Dany, or Arya. So I assumed he will play an important role in the battle in King's Landing. But he didn't even get the dignity of dying and bringing down Cersei or Mad Queen Dany (another victim of poor writing) with him. Even if he was never in KL, Cersei and Dany would still have died. So his conversation with Bran becomes yet another Chekov's gun unfired, and the most frustrating part is that it could have been fired if only D&D weren't so determined to stick with their Twincest is Best storyline.

​

Oh they also removed any shred of intelligence in him, in season 7 he was smart enough to cover his golden hand while undercover, but now he's not, to support his abusive lover's assessment of him as the stupidest Lannister, I guess.

​

I originally wrote this on my tumblr to assure my fellow Jaime fans that they were reading Jaime right, we were only wrong in our assumption that D&D would employ some logic in their writing decisions for Jaime in this final season.

And I'm posting here as well, to ask you all not to give D&D way more credit than they deserve. They fucked up Jaime's arc, just like they did Dany's.

I think they should have moved that up to Episode 2 and ended Jaime’s arc with him killing the Night King at the cost of his own life.

Change the meaning of Kingslayer and confirm he’s Azor Ahai and let him die fully changed and in accordance to his nature.

Jaime is not a villain- he acts so villainous when we first meet him because he is a fallen hero.

Not that the show ever addressed this, but the real Jaime is the kid that wanted to know why he wasn’t fulfilling his oath to protect women when Aerys was raping Rhaella. His story is sociological as well as psychological; he’s beaten by the institutions that direct his behavior and that of everyone around him. He’s so hostile to Eddard because Ned, in a sense, is that system. To Jaime, Ned is somebody who has it easy- honor has never cost him anything. He can be the honorable, stiff Lord Stark because it’s easy. We know that’s not true, but Jaime has an arrogant, adolescent view of the world and is convinced that he’s the only one who, when tested with a dilemma, did the right thing over the honorable (and safe) thing.

When he says “by what right does the wolf judge the lion” he’s not saying they’re both predators, he’s saying someone who’s part of the same system he’s surrendered to, after learning the hard way that honorable and right are distantly related at best, has no right to judge him. He’s almost like a teenage nihilist until he has a transformative experience and meets someone who shares his ideals and lives a rebellion against the system every day of her life, something he was afraid to do.

The show basically missed all of that and made him a whiny, wishy-washy blockhead. In light of the finale, his confession in the baths doesn’t come off as seeking approval, it seems like he’s fishing for sympathy and playing up his heroism.

So what’s up with the Eyrie... we just sweeping that story line under the rug?

Why the fuck does anyone need to go to the wall? Why don’t they just send those people to be with the unsullied? Or idk any other solution?!

Jon and Tormund would make the absolute best survive duo show together.

Tyrion sacrificing himself to show Jon what would happen if he went and told her what she did was wrong and tried to walk away. Completely underrated scene, and a nice surprise as to why I even watch the show ( George finish the books please!).

What the absolute fuck is up with Bran, and his story line?! What has he been doing this entire season?!

I miss Theon. Morning the dead was not long enough.

Very extremely disappointed is the shows ending of Arya and now a little less excited to read. I can see her doing her exploring, and I’m sure G.R.R. Martin will make it beautifully bittersweet and actually cohesive to her character, but why the fuck the rush? She should at least have spent some time enjoying the peace of independence with Sansa, visit the wall, maybe just take some time to heal and process before diving into an unknown endless sea adventure. She was by far my favourite character and they didn’t even have her do any cool dark magic shit once. She’s just sneaking around serious and sully in every scene.

Perception is reality. Dany has always been a weirdo, in the books her character is boring and at times hard to read. She feels absolutely lifeless and robotic. The moment she unleashed that dragon onto kings landing I was like fuck yeah burn them all. Why? Because she was finally being her true self. She had been raised to absolutely hate and despise the west, the kingdoms, lords and leaders who refused to save her, refused to bring her back, refused to fight for her. She went so far down the rabbit hole in search of justice that she found a way to convince herself of what she’s always wanted to do - unleash fire and fury onto every single person who’s ever wronged her and stood in her way, including the supporters of her enemies. Dany tipped when Jon crushed her heart and her other dragon died. She has no one, and I’m looking forward to seeing that arc develop in the books.

Fuck what they did with Bronn and his stupid ass weak character even making a damn lick of sense. He just shows up whenever the fuck he feels like it, and hustles the hell out of the “most powerful people in Westeros”. The crossbow scene was absurdly distracting at how little sense it made, BRAN KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED and still lets this mother fucker be trusted.

Tyrion leading the conversation for who should be king while little in shackles was also completely distracting.

Brianne’s ending was sad AF. What she wrong was a little too nice in my opinion. Jamie and Cersi being in love was incestuously bittersweet, but all their children wound up dying because of their love, and thousands of others and Jamie in the end chose to die with that crazy woman while putting his brother in a terrible position.

Overall this season was one the biggest let downs I’ve had the displeasure of experiencing in a long time from a tv show with so much potential. It breaks my heart that a story so magical, captivating the minds of millions of people across the world, sparking endless debates and conversations. It’s a true classic for the ages, maybe even one of the greatest stories told across two centuries. They had the honour of being trusted with this amazing story that sells it self, and they fucked it up. They decided dramatic big eyed exchanges, endless battle scenes, confusing timelines, and fluctuating army and crowd numbers were the way to go.

Lastly - seriously wtf is up with the Dothraki && unsullied?! DIDNT THEY ALL DIE?! I thought the shocker of who died a million times was over but it seemed there we more unsullied than ever before at the end, at winterfell I thought maybe 1,000 or so survived, and all the Dothraki died. Come to find out they are straight chillin. Now their queen is dead and Davos is like fuck it, you guys are new in town let me give you some land to fuck around with and figure out your new lives while we do the same shit we’ve always done here in kings landing even though we made a huge deal about breaking the wheel.

Oh and if we’re going to be sitting at a damn table pretending everything back to normal, WHY WAS RECONSTRUCTION NOT EVEN AN ISSUE?! MEDICAL CARE?! Bronn master of coin?! What the absolute fuck were these writers thinking.

Thank you G.R.R.M. At the glimpse of what’s to come. Hopefully if you’re not writing the books, at reading this feedback. Also isn’t this sub for the book discussion / predictions / fan theories and not a circle jerk of straight up show talk?! There is a whole other sub to complain in that has nothing to do with the books.

Edit: Wowzers this is my first gold. Thank you very much kind stranger. And also my apologies for the unedited grammar errors. Wrote this in a fury on my phone after finally watching the finale.

Deeply reflecting, it’s kind of nice D&D did such a terrible job, can’t wait to read the books more than ever.

The Jaime fanboy rage is real right now. But this is his book arc. He is going to mercy kill Cersei and then commit suicide. He doesn't become a great hero or save Westeros.

If Cersei was his true love (and D&D certainly seemed to want us to believe so), he wouldn't have slept with Brienne that night. Actually he wouldn't have started a relationship with her at all if he wasn't sure as a huge part of his character is his fidelity.

The thing I think about is that you're taking the time to tell someone about something because it's interesting. By the time the tale is done, they'll feel rewarded for the time it took to listen to you. A tale can be happy or tragic but, if it's good, the experience is rewarding.

So we have two choices to place Jamie, redemptive or tragic. Both can be executed plausibly. The redemptive ending can still be sad but you'll feel happier with him as a person vs. the tragic ending.

You can make a valid argument that he can relapse and OD. This is known to happen in real life. People can die for their weaknesses. But does this really feel satisfying for him? Does that really feel like his most suitable arc?

I like how he had finally broken his infatuation with her at the end of season 7. It was one of the few things there that worked for me. And it really seemed clear that Chekov's wildfire cache was setup from the first season. He killed his king because he was going to burn the city. He'd be forced to kill Cersei for the same thing.

It would have been a fine bit of strategy for Jamie to tell Brienne he wants to come back to her but he has to make this effort to get Cersei out of the city. "You are doing this for her?" And he says no, I'm doing it for the people of the city. You see what these dragons can do. If we have to take the city, it'll likely burn. If I can get her to leave under the queen's protection, we've saved the city.

So he's sneaks in and the timetable for his plan goes wrong or maybe Cersei manages to do something to provoke the attack early. If she did happen to have Missandei, throwing her off the wall would have been enough to do it. Cersei thinks Jamie has come back to her and he'll play along to get her out of the city but then she realizes that's his plan and she then says blah blah I'll sooner see the city burn than give it to her. She can then indicate that she's ready to give the order to fire the caches. Jamie kills Cersei and thinks that he's saved the city. He's slumped to the ground and overcome with emotion and then he hears a scream as Dany's second dragon, who wasn't 360 no-scoped by Urine Greyjoy, is killed in the attack on the city and this causes Dany to go mental and attack the Red Keep directly which then ignites the wildfire.

Jamie and Cersei are both presumed dead after this point because no bodies are found, Dany didn't set out to incinerate a bunch of women and children but her actions are conflated with it because the city went up in flames after she attacked the Red Keep.

So long as we're now rewriting the series, Jon is told by advisers she's gone bannaners and he has to kill her but he goes to talk to her and she's back from having walked the ruins and she's shook. She says she has the heart of a conqueror, not a ruler, and she doesn't even have the heart for it anymore. She has the iron throne and it has cost her almost everything. Jon is the last thing she last left. They both renounce ties to the throne, Targ line is done. Kingsmoot decides who the next ruler should be.

Arya leaping from the shadows to shank the Night King was not badass. But why not?

Plenty of people have lobbed well-founded criticisms at that moment: The Night King was Jon’s adversary, not hers; her ninja skills leveling up was out of nowhere; the Night King’s invasion ended way too quickly; you can’t just retcon in a friggin’ prophecy; the list goes on. They don’t get to why it wasn’t badass though.

Badassery is actually something very specific in story telling, and we can break apart the story elements to see how it works and why it failed with Arya.

Goal -> Obstacle -> Struggle -> Resolution

Stories are inherently about conflict. Someone wants something, and there’s some number of obstacles in their way. Without the obstacles, there’s no story.

In Stand By Me, a group of four boys have heard about the dead body of a missing kid in the woods. So they call a taxi, and it drives them right to the spot. The end. What an awful movie that would have been. “Man wants something, gets it” is not a story. “Man wants something, there’s an obstacle in the way, he struggles to overcome the obstacle, and then gets the thing” — that’s a story.

Let’s apply this to Arya during the Battle of Winterfell and see how it goes:

Arya wants to survive the zombie apocalypse. She fights hard on the castle’s battlements, gets overwhelmed by zombies, tries to escape, is injured in the process, has to sneak through the library, but eventually makes it to temporary safety at the hearth with Melisandre. That’s actually doing a pretty good job. Her goal is to stay alive, the obstacle is a hundred thousand zombies, and she struggles against them. She’s sort of a badass there. Now compare it to what follows:

Melisandre tells Arya to go kill the Night King. Then she does.

That’s not even hyperbole. Arya gets a new goal, and the next time we see her, she completes it with ease. What’s missing is the struggle.

The Struggle Is What Makes A Character A Badass

Compare Arya’s scenes in 8.3 with Jon’s fight against a White Walker at Hardhome. He’s thrown to the ground and disarmed, finds another sword, has is break against the Walker’s weapon, gets bludgeoned in the chest and falls hard, then he recovers Longclaw, tries to run, can’t get away, fights with the Walker, blocks the attack, gets in the counter-stroke and kills it. Badass.

Compare it to the non-badass version: the White Walker throws Jon away from the dragon glass; he draws Longclaw, blocks the Walker’s next attack, counters and kills it. The audience’s reaction isn’t “wow, badass!” it’s “lolwut?” The reason it stops being badass is because Jon didn’t struggle to overcome the attack. This is why the audience barely remembers Jon killing the second White Walker during the Folly Beyond the Wall; he just does it with ease.

Plot Armor And Deus Ex Machina Are Badass Repellent

Where stories often go wrong is having the obstacle overcome by something other than the character’s effort. The Battle of the Bastards is an example of this, and why it doesn’t stand out as a “badass” moment for Jon. He doesn’t overcome the Bolton army through his own effort — he’s rescued by the Knights of the Vale. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of awesome action in that episode, but none of the characters are badasses. Fabian Wagner, the episode’s cinematographer, is a badass.

This is also why plot armor feels so incredibly wrong. It allows the character to achieve their objective not through their own personal effort, but because the hand of God has intervened to remove obstacles from their path. Plot armor not only makes us question the rules the story is operating under, it robs characters of the opportunity to engage with their obstacles.

Power Is Not Badass, And Wars Not Make One Great

Characters who are so powerful that they don’t struggle to overcome their obstacles are not badass. If there's no struggle, they're not even really obstacles. This is what makes Daenerys ultimately so underwhelming at times. Flying on a dragon and burning her enemies produces some really awesome visuals, but it’s not badass; it’s just easy. Dany is actually far more badass when she’s sitting on her throne in the Great Pyramid receiving supplicants. She has the goal of ruling a peaceful, prosperous and free city, but all sorts of economic and political obstacles emerge, and she struggles to figure out how to navigate a complex system. She ends up being far more badass sitting on a chair than riding on a dragon.

Brienne isn’t a badass because she’s such a good warrior. If she was, we’d think The Mountain was a badass as well, but we don’t. Brienne is a badass because when she fights we can see the effort going into it. Totally different from Ser Gregor cutting down lesser men with ease. Makes Gregor an excellent obstacle for our other characters, but he is not himself a badass. Likewise with Arya sparring against Brienne, Arya isn’t a badass. It’s not a struggle for her; she’s toying with Brienne. Maisie Williams on the other hand, she’s right handed but learned to do her sword fighting scenes with Syrio left handed to stay true to the character. That’s badass.

We see the same problem with the ending of Rogue One when Darth Vader boards the Profundity and murders the shit out of a bunch of rebel fleet troopers. It might be a fun sequence, but when he destroys a squad of troopers with zero effort, it’s not badass. Compare that to Luke’s duel in Return of the Jedi. Beating down Vader and eventually cutting off Vader’s hand is also not badass. He has struggled to overcome an obstacle, but what’s gone wrong is that he’s no longer working towards his goal. But, then he remembers his goal and overcomes his hatred. When he throws down his lightsaber and says he is a Jedi like his father before him, truly badass.

Tyrion throwing down the Hand of the King badge on the steps of the Red Keep — His goal has become to live in a way he can be proud of, and now he has to be willing to give up his life to do so. Badass.

Littlefinger’s death — He posed no real threat to Sansa and Arya so he’s not an obstacle. Not badass.

“Your meat is bloody tough” — Robb and Greatjon Umber have just stumbled into a very dangerous situation for the two of them and manage to find a way out of it that preserves their lives and the alliance between their houses. Two badasses.

Arya killing Ser Meryn — The actual stabbing is fairly easy for her, but it takes effort to get into the position to do so, including jeopardizing her status with the Faceless Men. Fairly badass.

Arya killing the Waif — Arya does struggle to lure the Waif into her trap, right? Seems like it should be badass. But, she already plot armored her way out of the Waif’s earlier assassination attempt, so she doesn’t seem like a true threat. Then the giant leap towards the end — is Arya just frantically running from the Waif, or was that leap (and the injury!) part of the plan all along? We have no idea, and it almost seems like she reaches the room with Needle by chance, not by design. Not badass.

Tyrion leads the sally against Stannis’s men at the Mud Gate — As badass as it gets.

Dany says “dracarys” and her dragons do all the work — No.

If you enjoyed this post and want more story telling analysis so you can explain to your loser friends why their opinions about the show are wrong, head on over to The Quill and Tankard. Fair warning though, it might become too easy to dismantle their opinions on the show, so you won't be a badass for doing it.

I know, the initial reaction is to think of the most recent season of GoT or the most recent episodes and think only negative thoughts. Like something has been "ruined" or "spoiled", etc.

But think back a bit, 10 years ago. Somehow many of us found out that they were making a pilot based off these books we treasured. Most people you knew in real life didn't read these books, in fact, it was considered nerdy by the majority population to read epic fantasy.

You know what I expected from the pilot? Absolute garbage. It's a TV show! My initial thoughts were this is impossible. Too many characters, too complex of a landscape/terrain to understand, it's just going to be watered down. And not only that, but are people going to be interested in fantasy? No, this show is going to sputter out and die like Firefly.

But goddamn, each season kept coming and coming. I think by the middle of season one, I started to realize: they're doing it. The impossible. The casting was incredible and brought them to life. There were cuts, but they were (for the most part) necessary. The music injected the emotion felt when reading perfectly. Friends and family watched scenes you had in your head for years: Ned's fate, the Red Wedding, the Mountain / Red Viper, Tyrion killing his father. And they were almost as good as the books... wait... no, they were maybe better. When is that ever done? Suddenly my dad is telling me about Jon Snow's birthright to the throne of the seven kingdoms. WTF.

We got lucky. This is a one in a million chance. We could have been fans of these books and stayed in obscurity. Or the first season could have been garbage and died out, as I expected. But they were (for the most part) brought to life on the screen.

So when people say that everything is ruined and now it's not good/rewatchable. Man. My perspective tells me that's NOT true. I don't believe in perfection, especially in a medium like this. Especially given how difficult I knew the task at hand was going in. But when I step back and look at the entire thing from a high level, I feel nothing but gratitude.

We may get the final book and we may not. If we didn't, I'd probably read some fan fiction before I died and revel in that anyway, flawed as it would be. That's sort of what D&D's interpretation of the end was, so I knew it wouldn't be GRRM quality, but if that's all we get? I can live with that. If the last book does come out? And gives incredible depth and explanation to some things we didn't like in season 8 with the true ending? It'll be one of the most unique reading experiences I've ever had.

A few days ago, I saw a post from a fellow redditor who discussed the decline in dialogue in Game of Thrones. He/she wondered if we could calculate the number of words in each episode, which would be a proxy for the quality of the dialogues in the show. So I went ahead and calculated just that using the following method. First I downloaded all 72 Game of Thrones episode subtitles as srt files and used a python script provided by ndunn219 to convert this to a text file. In this script we filter out background conversations and things like (Grunt). This resulted into a file with readable text. For each episode I calculated the number of words said during this episode and the episode length. The length of the episode was determined by taking the number of hours and minutes from the last timestamp provided in the srt file. Next I divided the total wordcount of each episode by the number of minutes, which resulted in a value of words per minute for each episode. The script and list of subtitle files can be found on github.

Just saw this comment on youtube, and I think it's perfectly fitting for those that think everything Daenerys did was good and just and that her tyranny came out of nowhere.

"Here's a fun little thought exercise: Review the story of Season 5, from the point of view of Hizdahr zo Loraq. If you're like most of us, you probably spent the season thinking he was leading the Sons of the Harpy, but E9 kinda disproved that. So, to review:"

This foreign invader conquers his city "For its own good", and has his father brutally executed for a crime other people committed; she wasn't misinformed about his father's guilt, she just didn't care, and assigned blame based on social status. Eventually, Hizdahr manages to convince her to be generous enough to let him bury his wrongfully murdered father, rather than have the vultures eat him. During the audience, he probably noticed that she did not have a single Mereenese advisor in her inner circle. Rather than fucking off to watch her fail from a safe distance, he actually tries to help, because he wants to lessen the suffering of his city, and maybe even because he believes in some of the change she brings.

​

For this, he's treated his hostility, suspicion and contempt, but he keeps trying. One day, though, something really horrible happens, on a scale far worse than any of the death and depravity her siege has brought so far: A person from her continent is killed! Clearly that's completely unacceptable, so she goes with what she knows: Executing random rich people, this time by feeding them to her dragons. Hizdahr watches one of his comrades be burned to death, ripped apart and devoured by her monsters, and then spends a night in the dungeons expecting the same for himself. Instead, she informs him that he'll be marrying her (again, remember: This is the woman who killed his father.) At this point, Hizdahr is basically a more noble version of Sansa, dealing with what seems to be a more monstrous version of Joffrey.

​

Then, the last day of his life. When he arrives at the arena after doing some last minute work to try to make sure everything goes smoothly, he's greeted with the curtness he's learned to expect from this invader. There's a new person in his circle - the son of one of the men who betrayed and killed her father. It's cool, though, because when he showed up he offered his help and advice, so now he's part of her inner circle. Guess it just helps to be from the right continent - i.e., not the one she's trying to govern.

​

Hizdahr takes his seat, and enjoys some playful humiliation and threats from his future wife's asshole lover, and some insults from her and her new advisor as well. She also makes it clear that she's willing to burn his beloved city to the ground if it doesn't straighten up and start being the kind of realm she wants to rule. Then, catastrophe: The Sons of the Harpy attack en masse! Hizdahr makes one last effort to be useful, offering to show her a safe way out of the arena, but the Unsullied have more important people to protect, so he's stabbed a lot. As he falls over bleeding, his Queen's eyes fill with guilt and affection as she stares soulfully at... someone else, that knight she had exiled a while ago. Then she glances back at him like "Oh, is he dead now?" before scurrying off to leave him to bleed to death."

I enjoyed the show overall but didn't like the last season all that much. Now that it's finished I just don't see the point in ever rewatching it.

The white walkers storyline didn't mean sht in the end.

Daenerys ended up going mad too quickly without a good build up leading to it.

Jon ended up where he started but again his arc was mostly tied in with the white walkers which ended up being useless.

Jaime, all that redemption arc only to go back to be with his sister in their final moments.

What was the point of Bran being the 3-eyed-raven? In the end he did nothing also but became king. Bran the broken's story? A boy who became a cripple, made a journey to learn how to use his superpowers , only ended up really using those powers to mentally ruin Hodor and inform Jon the truth of his parentage and of his claim to the iron throne but that ended up being useless as he was sent back to the Nights Watch and Bran apparently foresaw this anyway.

Only reason to ever watch it again is if your friend/partner has never seen it and you watch it with them for their reactions, otherwise it's useless. What do you guys think?

There is a post currently going to go to the top of the sub which I am concerned may be (unintentionally) misleading people. The theory referenced in that post specifically CONTRADICTS the idea of Bran being the King of Westeros in King's Landing. The "Fisher King" theory actually concerns the MAGICAL conclusion to the story (particularly the White Walkers and the Children of the Forest), if it is truly relevant to the books.

To catch people up, it has been suggested that when GRRM said someone had correctly predicted the ending, he was referring to the theory of Bran's story being an analogy of The Fisher King, as seen here.

Here is a critical part of the essay to note:

The Fisher King myth functions then simply as a strategy of legitimation for royal authority and thus for a progressively more and more absolutist monarchy, perceived and culturally represented as the only imaginable form of government.

Does the divine right of royal authority really sound like a major theme GRRM is going for with ASOIAF?

If you read the theory you will see it suggests there was an ancient pact made by Brandon the Builder with the Children of the Forest, of which Bran "the Broken" is the culmination, and it will be his role to draw power from the Weirwood in Winterfell (the "Heart of Winter") in order to lock away the Others, and continue the legacy of the Children. There is a suggestion Bran may end as the King of Winter, a sort of Bloodraven of Winterfell, but the idea that Bran will end up on (the equivalent) of the Iron Throne, as we saw in the show, goes against what the theory suggests.

Here are some relevant passages:

The Others are the wolves to hunt humans, the ice to bring balance to the fire. The Starks in Winterfell act as one of the keepers of that balance, the lock on a gate that keeps at bay a dark power in the earth

Whatever Faustian Bargain the Builder made for the Children’s aid, it’s clear that he didn’t just offer himself: he offered up his heirs. Bran’s journey, his grooming as lord, warg and now greenseer is a mechanization possibly thousands of years in the making.

The explanation lies in the weirwoods, and in their aid to Bran and by extension the realm: They intend that humanity will be the heirs to their stewardship of the sacred trees that hold the souls of their ancestors and their memory.

If the Builder was in fact a greenseer, and the Winterfell heart tree his ultimate resting place, as he is strongly evidenced to be, then that means that Brandon’s journey has been under the direct gaze of his ancestor from the very beginning.

Bran will not so much be a human being as a vessel and conduit of the magical energies that are the source of House Stark’s power. He will be a king where “he had never asked to be a prince”, a greenseer where “it was knighthood he had always dreamed of”: He will be the Stark in Winterfell, bound to the place first by the paralyzing of his legs, his wedding to the direwolf and the trees, and then his physical binding to the heart tree itself.

Perhaps you could argue the power of Westeros will end up centered in Winterfell, with Bran as a tree-god-king surviving for hundreds (or thousands?) of years, but I think that misses the real point of this theory, contradicts GRRM's themes and makes zero sense geopolitically. Why would the southern kingdoms follow a tree-god in Winterfell?

TLDR; The real suggestion of "The Fisher King" theory is that Bran will remain in Winterfell, and be the culmination of a pact with the Children of the Forest to lock away the White Walkers and continue on the legacy of the Children.

This makes me think that they really weren't using the dragonglass to its fullest potential. I mean, yeah, they're medieval people, so their minds immediately go to swords/spears/arrows, but they could've used it in much more effective ways.

Shards of dragonglass embedded in their armor, facing outwards.

Grind the dragonglass up into powder or shards and spray it on the AotD from the tops of the castle walls. Or, load it into catapults and spray it over the AotD.

Embed a tiny shard of dragonglass under every soldier's skin, so they can't be revived.

Don't even bother with swords or spears at all. Every man holds two shields, with small shards of dragonglass embedded on the outside, facing outwards. If they want to kill a wight, they just bash them with a shield.

I know they don't have access to it, but if they did, wildfire could be used to make dragonglass claymore mines. Just fill a few thin cloth pouches with dragonglass shards and glue the pouches to the outside of a bottle of wildfire. Stick a piece of oily cloth down the neck of the bottle, light it, then throw it/catapult it. It explodes, dragonglass gets sprayed in every direction with enough force to pierce at least a few wights before it stops.

Non-dragonglass idea, but just cut down a few big ass trees, saw their limbs off so the trunk is roughly circular, then roll them into the undead army. It won't kill them, but a giant fucking tree trunk crushing their bodies will fuck them up enough to keep them down. It'd be like a steamroller rolling over the undead. Plus, having to climb over it would stagger their approach, making them less overwhelming.

George R.R. Martin, author of the A Song of Ice and Fire series, just admitted that some fans have actually figured out the ending to the epic, seven-book saga. According to the AV Club, Martin commented on the veracity of certain fan theories during a talk at the Edinburgh International Literary Festival.

"So many readers were reading the books with so much attention that they were throwing up some theories, and while some of those theories were amusing bulls*** and creative, some of the theories are right," Martin said. "At least one or two readers had put together the extremely subtle and obscure clues that I'd planted in the books and came to the right solution."

"So what do I do then? Do I change it? I wrestled with that issue and I came to the conclusion that changing it would be a disaster, because the clues were there. You can't do that, so I’m just going to go ahead. Some of my readers who don't read the boards — which thankfully there are hundreds of thousands of them — will still be surprised and other readers will say: 'see, I said that four years ago, I'm smarter than you guys'."

There is a strong case that the GOT ending we got is broadly the same one we'll get in the books. Other than GRRM/D&D talking about how the series' main destination will be the same, Martin's latest blogpost doesn't suggest that King Bran was a show creation.

Which leads to my guess about the "correct solution" that one or two readers picked up on: it is the "Bran as The Fisher King" theory that was posted on the official ASOIAF Forum board. I welcome you to read the full post by user "SacredOrderOfGreenMen", but I'll try to briefly summarise it here by pasting a few excerpts:

"The Stark in Winterfell" is ASOIAF’s incarnation of the Fisher King, a legendary figure from English and Welsh mythology who is spiritually and physically tied to the land, and whose fortunes, good and ill, are mirrored in the realm. It is a story that, as it tells how the king is maimed and then healed by divine power, validates that monarchy. The role of "The Stark in Winterfell" is meant to be as its creator Brandon the Builder was, a fusion of apparent opposites: man and god, king and greenseer, and the monolith that is his seat is both castle and tree, a "monstrous stone tree.”

Bran’s suffering because of his maiming just as Winterfell itself is “broken” establishes an sympathetic link between king and kingdom.

He has a name that is very similar to one of the Fisher King’s other titles, the Wounded King. The narrative calls him and he calls himself, again and again, “broken":

Just broken. Like me, he thought.

"Bran,” he said sullenly.Bran the Broken.“Brandon Stark.” The cripple boy.

But who else would wed a broken boy like him?

And through the mist of centuries the broken boy could only watch.

GRRM’s answer to the question “How can mortal me be perfect kings?” is evident in Bran’s narrative: Only by becoming something not completely human at all, to have godly and immortal things, such as the weirwood, fused into your being, and hence to become more or less than completely human, depending on your perspective. This is the only type of monarchy GRRM gives legitimacy, the kind where the king suffers on his journey and is almost dehumanized for the sake of his people.

Understanding that the Builder as the Fisher King resolves many contradictions in his story, namely the idea that a man went to a race of beings who made their homes from wood and leaf to learn how to a build a stone castle. There was a purpose much beyond learning; he went to propose a union: human civilization and primordial forest, to create a monolith that is both castle and tree, ruled by a man that is both king and shaman, as it was meant to be. And as it will be, by the only king in Westeros that GRRM and his story values and honors: Brandon Stark, the heir to Winterfell, son of Lord Eddard and Lady Catelyn.

Arya killing the NK still stands as one of the dumbest 'surprises for surprise's sake' in the entire season, but it's clear now why it was done .... because otherwise Arya's entire character would have been pointless this season. They gave her the role because she wouldn't have had one without it. It's a lame reason, for sure, but it makes sense now.

It seems the writers flippantly tossed each character one major thing to do in the season.

Arya does absolutely nothing except kill the NK

Bran does absolutely nothing except get elected king in the end

Cersei does absolutely nothing but kill Missandei then die

Jaime does absolutely nothing but break Brienne's heart to die with Cersei

Jorah does absolutely nothing but die protecting Dany

Theon does absolutely nothing but die protecting Bran

Jon does absolutely nothing but kill Dany

Sansa does absolutely nothing but reveal Jon's identity, then made QotN

Tyrion does absolutely nothing but make the case for Bran

Only Dany seems to have been given any semblance of a character arc, and even that is reduced to 'spontaneously flipping out into a mad queen, burning KL, then dying' ....

SANSA STARK: Where's Jon?
GREY WORM: He is our prisoner.
SANSA STARK: So is Lord Tyrion. They were both to be brought to this gathering.
GREY WORM: We will decide what we do with our prisoners. This is our city now.

GREY WORM: The bylaws of the Unsullied clearly state that all captured prisoners are to be immediately executed, except those who confess to plotting against or murdering the Queen.

SANSA STARK: If you look outside the walls of your city, you’ll find thousands of Northmen who will explain to you why harming Jon Snow is not in your interest.
GREY WORM: And you will find thousands of Unsullied who believe that it is.

TYRION LANNISTER: And also thousands of Dothraki, who we kinda forgot about, but who probably just settled down and became peaceful farmers in a totally strange land after the death of the one person who has been able to unite them.

YARA GREYJOY: Some of you may be quick to forgive. The Ironborn are not. I swore to follow Daenerys Targaryen.

YARA GREYJOY: If there’s one thing the Ironborn are known for, it’s keeping subservient oaths made to foreign land-based rulers after they have served their purpose.

SANSA STARK: You swore to follow a tyrant.
YARA GREYJOY: She freed us from a tyrant. Cersei is gone because of her, and Jon Snow put a knife in her heart. Let the Unsullied give him what he deserves.
ARYA STARK: Say another word about killing my brother and I’ll cut your throat.

SER DAVOS SEAWORTH: Friends, please. We’ve been cutting each other’s throats long enough. Torgo Nudho. Am I saying that properly? If it weren’t for you and your men, we would’ve lost the war with the dead.

SER DAVOS SEAWORTH: This country owes you a debt it can never repay, but let us try. There is land in the Reach. Good land.

SER DAVOS SEAWORTH: No butterflies at all.

SER DAVOS SEAWORTH: The people that used to live there are gone. Make it your own.

SAMWELL TARLY: Uh, not sure that belongs to you to give away, old man. Last I checked that’s House Tarly’s land now.

SER DAVOS SEAWORTH: Start your own house with the Unsullied as your bannermen.

GREY WORM: Start a house? You do know what it means to be a eunuch, right?

SER DAVOS SEAWORTH: We’ve had enough war. Thousands of you, thousands of them. You know how it ends. We need to find a better way.
GREY WORM: We do not need payment. We need justice. Jon Snow cannot go free.

BRAN STARK: For example, a new king friendly to Jon Snow might look to precedent involving a new king pardoning the man who ensured his rise to power by breaking his oaths and slaying his ruler for the greater good of King’s Landing. Or not.

GREY WORM: You are not here to speak! Everyone has heard enough words from you.

GREY WORM: I will tolerate only one more impassioned speech setting the course of the future of this land and deciding your own fate. Two, at most.

TYRION LANNISTER: You’re right. And no one’s any better for it. But it’s not for you to decide. Jon committed his crime here. His fate is for our king to decide. Or our queen.
YOHN ROYCE: We don’t have a king or queen.
TYRION LANNISTER: You’re the most powerful people in Westeros. Choose one.
GREY WORM: Make your choice, then.

EDMURE TULLY: This is it. My first scene in years. The show may have made me into a bumbling fool and then forgotten all about my family, but this is my chance for redemption.

EDMURE TULLY: My lords and ladies [CLEARS THROAT] I suppose this is the most important moment of our lives. What we decide today will reverberate through the annals of history. I stand before you as one of the senior lords in the country. A veteran of two wars. And I like to think my experience has led to some small skill in statecraft - and underst-
SANSA STARK: Uncle? Please sit.
YOHN ROYCE: Well, we have to choose someone.
SAMWELL TARLY: Um, ahem. Why just us? Um—we represent all the great houses, but whomever we choose, they won’t just rule over lords and ladies. Maybe the decision about what’s best for everyone should be left to well, everyone.

SAMWELL TARLY: They had this really good book in the Citadel by Maesters Marx and Engels. Plus I’ve been digging these ravencasts that House Chapo Trap is putting out.

EDMURE TULLY: Maybe we should give the dogs a vote as well.
YOHN ROYCE: I’ll ask my horse.
EDMURE TULLY: I suppose you want the crown.
TYRION LANNISTER: Me? The Imp? Half the people hate me for serving Daenerys, the other half hate me for betraying her. Can’t think of a worse choice.
SER DAVOS SEAWORTH: Who then?

PRINCE OF DORNE: We should listen to him as the representative of House Lannister, who I’m sure has gotten over that whole murdered half-his-family thing.GENDRY BARATHEON: We should listen to him because he has the full backing of a massive slave army very loyal to him.SER DAVOS SEAWORTH: We should listen to him because he’s shown himself to be a trustworthy person with no ulterior motives whatsoever.YOHN ROYCE: We should listen to him because he murdered his nephew King Joffrey, murdered his father, the Hand of the King, betrayed his realm to serve a foreign queen, and then conspired against that queen. A man who’s gotten all that treason out of his system is LESS likely to betray the realm than a man whose treasonous desires remain unsatisfied.

TYRION LANNISTER: I’ve had nothing to do but think these past few weeks. About our bloody history. About the mistakes we’ve made. What unites people? Armies? Gold? Flags? Stories. There’s nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it. And who has a better story than Bran the Broken?

SAMWELL TARLY: Or, you know, the guy that came back to life from the dead, the rightful heir to the Seven Kingdoms, the Prince that was Promised, Azor Ahai, the union of fire and ice, who lived his life under the lie that he was an unwanted bastard, a lie that both forged who he was and taught him that leadership is earned and not bestowed. The man who rose from ignominy to become Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch, who assembled a force to defeat the greatest evil the world has ever known. I guess you’re right, not much of a story though.

TYRION LANNISTER: The boy who fell from a high tower and lived.

UNNAMED COUNCIL PARTICIPANT: Who?

TYRION LANNISTER: He knew he’d never walk again, so he learned to fly. He crossed beyond the Wall, a crippled boy, and became the Three-Eyed Raven.

TYRION LANNISTER: Plus he comes with his own chair which is awfully convenient.

SANSA STARK: Bran has no interest in ruling and he can’t father children.
TYRION LANNISTER: Good. Sons of kings can be cruel and stupid, as you well know.

TYRION LANNISTER: Unlike actual kings, which are never cruel and stupid, especially not those with magical powers.

TYRION LANNISTER: His will never torment us.

TYRION LANNISTER: That’s why historically the most peaceful transitions of power always happen when kings die without heirs.

TYRION LANNISTER: That is the wheel our queen wanted to break. From now on, rulers will not be born. They will be chosen on this spot by the lords and ladies of Westeros to serve the realm.

TYRION LANNISTER: And if there’s one thing the Game of Thrones is all about, it’s that the lords and ladies of Westeros rarely disagree on who should sit the Iron Throne.

TYRION LANNISTER: I know you don’t want it. I know you don’t care about power. But I ask you now, if we choose you will you wear the crown? Will you lead the Seven Kingdoms to the best of your abilities from this day until your last day?

SAMWELL TARLY: Wait, does the Three-Eyed Raven actually ever die? Are we just appointing a King for all eternity? What if this was all-

BRAN STARK: Why do you think I came all this way?

BRAN STARK: Apparently I have been engineering the slaughter of tens of thousands so that I could manipulate you all into picking me to sit the Iron Throne for all eternity. Thanks bro, knew I could count on you.

ROBIN ARRYN: Yeah idk what's up with this Wheelchair Wikipedia but I’m good.

ROBIN ARRYN: Aye.

PRINCE OF DORNE: I am the Prince of Dorne, apparently. For almost two hundred years after Aegon’s Landing, our people fought against the Targaryens and their dragons to maintain our independence. We lost tens of thousands of lives, but ultimately prevailed after immense sacrifice. Our words are Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken.

PRINCE OF DORNE: Aye.

YARA GREYJOY: I am AshaYara Greyjoy. I represent a proud people who have their own way of life. We pay the iron price. We worship only the Drowned God. We do not sow. And I made a pact with Daenerys that the Iron Islands would become independent and never again be subservient to the Iron Throne.

GENDRY BARATHEON: I am Gendry Baratheon, legitimized son of the last legitimate King, Robert Baratheon. I should probably mention that at some point.

GENDRY BARATHEON: Aye.
SER DAVOS SEAWORTH: I’m not sure I get a vote, but aye.
SER BRIENNE OF TARTH: Aye.

SANSA STARK: My little brother is becoming ruler of all of Westeros. I should immediately undermine his authority.

SANSA STARK: I love you, little brother. I always will. You’ll be a good king. But tens of thousands of Northmen fell in the Great War defending all of Westeros. And those who survived have seen too much and fought too hard ever to kneel again. The North will remain an independent kingdom, as it was for thousands of years.

ALL: A Stark on the Iron Throne and also a Stark ruling the North separately. Voted on by a council with three Starks, a Stark cousin, a Stark uncle, Stark bannermen, and Jon Snow’s best friend. Works for me.

After episode 5 there were only two possible explanations for what Dany did. Either:
1) She went completely mad;
2) She decided to scare everyone into obedience.

I made a post after episode 5 explaining why I don't see amy reason for Dany to just snap. But I said it was very possible that she decided to rule with fear, since love wasn't available to her, seemingly at least.

But the finale thrashed both alternatives. When Jon spoke with Dany, she said that Cercei wanted to use the citizens od KL as a shield, to use her mercy as a weakness. And that Dany wouldn't allow that. She wouldn't allow them to be used against her mission for a better world.

But the citizens WEREN'T used as a shield at that point. Cercei had surrendered. Her soldiers surrendered. Sge had no scorpions. Even if she wanted to rain fire and blood on Cercei, what was the point of burning the entire city EXCEPT the Red Keep?

If the battle was still raging, Dany's soldiers were dying by the thousands, and Cercei was smirking from the Red Keep, then I could have understood Dany's decision, and even then ONLY IF she attacked the Keep directly.

This makes absolutely no sense, and D&D just went straight against the only explanation (ruling by fear) that made sense in their story.

Even with Bran being a supercomputer/god of google-fu, having the best information available is not proof of being able to utilize the best information. Ultimately, unless Bran can Warg multiple people simultaneously, all the time, there will be powerful people who will oppose his decisions and who will seek to remove or ignore him. And Bran doesn't really have the power to prevent that, I'll get to that shortly.

Fact is, with the shift to an Elective Monarchy the "Game of Thrones" has now become institutionalized. The potential gains for any suitably powerful and ambitious lord is greater than ever.

When one king dies, it becomes time to elect another and if you've connived, conned, killed and coerced enough of the competition and voting lords, you can now catapult you position to that of the highest office. Creating this opportunity for further upwards mobility, accessible only to the aristocracy, will more likely than not stifle development & mobility for the smallfolk, and reinforce the position of the aristocracy.

Given how consolidated power in westeros already is, an Elective Monarchy on it's own does nothing for the smallfolk as the smallfolk have no voice, role or power in Westerosi politics. And an Elective Monarchy does not incentivize the empowerment of the smallfolk as empowering smallfolk will only lead to widening of the competitive field for the elective monarchy. So by design, the elective monarchy is unlikely to improve anything for smallfolk.

Also as the Elective Monarchy is only applied to the highest office, that means all other roles and power structures remain unchanged which also means there is no reason to intentionally seek to improve the lives of the smallfolk. Quality of life will improve if there is peace, prosperity and stability in the realm, but it is unlikely that the vast majority of Westerosi people will see their lives, or that of their descendants get noticeably better.

The next problem with the elective monarchy is what it does to the distribution of power. Under the old system of primogeniture, there was always a clear incentive for aiding the king or a pretender during a rebellion/conflict. Regardless of who wins, the winner and their LINE who hold the highest position of power until they die out or get removed via conflict. So if you sacrifice half of your armies to put down the Blackfyre pretenders, or help Bobby B overthrow Crazy Aerys, you know that you'll be rewarded by the victor, and that your house will now curry favor & honor for generations to come. It's not a guarantee and later successors can forget about what your house had did for theirs, but for the most part there tends to be a long-lasting benefit for keeping a king on the throne or getting a new king on the throne.

Under an elective monarchy, that whole incentive is gone. Maybe the Reach contests the the election of the new King. They cry foul and call their banners to war. And perhaps the Reach is allied with the Westerlands who will benefit from putting a Reachman on the throne. Now if you are the Vale or the Riverlands, you may ask if you should bother getting involved. Perhaps if the newly elected king is your ally you might, but if you don't care for him is there an incentive? After all, the best case scenario for the elective monarchy is that the new King puts down the rebellion and has his reign. Then the Throne goes back up for grabs. What if you join the elected King's side and put down the Reach & Westerlands? Sure you'll benefit from being in the king's good graces for your efforts, but once he's gone, so is the favor you curry. What if the Reach & Westerlands haven't forgotten about your involvement in putting them down. Better hope their candidate either doesn't win, or isn't significantly biased against you now.

An elective Monarchy throws the Crownlands into a flux as their liege house changes with every new king. It's likely that we'll see the Crownlands become stricken with factionalism, skullduggery, sabotage and influence campaigns from other high lords strive to cripple and divide the power generated from the Crownlands. After all, the King's closest base of support is the Crownlands. Cripple/weaken the Crownlands and suddenly the king is significantly more dependent on his allies and home region. Also what happens when the next king doesn't want to relinquish control of the Crownlands? Bran doesn't have that issue because he can't produce any heirs and doesn't seem likely to marry or adopt or form a family. The House Stark of Kings Landing will most likely die with him. But the next King may secure his children in the Crownlands so that they retain more power long-term. What then? What if the next King gives his second son the seat of Duskendale or Rosby or Stokeworth? It could easily be done with just a little politicking. What if the king names his second son Lord Paramount of the Blackwater?

Finally, Bran Stark has an incredibly weak position. King Bran Stark presumably now holds the Crownlands & KL. Well KL is devastated so he can't expect much military power from them anytime soon and the Crownlands has never been that powerful. Now, adding to those issues is the problem of lack of alliances. It seems likely that Bran won't marry so he won't secure a marriage alliance, not that there'd be a purpose to making one with him as he will father no heirs and holds no lands other than the ones that will pass onto the next elected king. Secondly he doesn't really have the support of the North anymore. I mean sure Sansa would probably be willing to help Bran, but the North isn't his vassal anymore, nor part of the realm. It's independent.

If Bran is challenged, the North joining his side will be extremely controversial as the North would be a foreign kingdom interfering in domestic affairs. It'd only further resentment against Bran who lacks the power on his own to maintain his position. After all, aside from his "friendship" with Tyrion which would bring Westerlands support (if Tyrion did become Lord of Casterly Rock which isn't clear), Bran only has ties to the Riverlands & the Vale. Dorne, Iron Islands, the Reach, and Stormlands really owe him nothing. Dany elevated Gendry, and while Gendry may be good to Bran, there's no reason for any of his successors to be. Bronn's a cunning a cutthroat who'd cut a cripple without a second thought. Dorne & the Iron Islands owe Bran nothing and have no reason to back him.

Robert Baratheon's power existed in four forms. His legitimacy as king through successful rebellion, his personal alliances through marriage & friendship (The North thru Ned, The Vale thru Jon Arryn, the Westerlands thru Cersei), his personal power of KL & the Crownlands, & his family power of the Stormlands and Dragonstone.

Fact is Bobby B's position was unassailable as king. To fight him, one would need to match the powers of the Crownlands, Westerlands, Stormlands, Vale & The North. Of course other kingdoms will likely join him if called, if not out of duty & honor, out of doing the math behind his position.

Even the Targaryen's had real power behind their position. The early Targaryen's had Dragons & founding claim to enforce their position. Dragons automatically made challenge a non-starter. But, even after the dragons died out, the Targaryen's had founding claim & "being established" as a form of soft power. They were the kings of the seven kingdoms, who else would sit the throne if not them. The initial conquest saw the Targaryens eliminate the then dominant powers, raise different houses to positions of prominence and set precedent with that. House Baratheon had historic ties and loyalties to the Targaryens because of House Baratheon's founding & House Tyrell & Tully had loyalty/neutrality out of the Targaryen's elevating their households.

So even when the Targaryen's real source of power (dragons) died out, despite only holding Dragonstone & the Crownlands, house Targaryen had established a precedent and system that limited external threats to a historically Targaryen position. The only major conflicts the Targaryen rulers faced post conquest was Dorne (expansionary issue so not related to this), The Dance & The Blackfyres. The Dance was Targaryen v. Targaryen & the Blackfyres was basically Left Twix Vs. Right Twix. The Blackfyres was just bastard Targaryens.

Ultimately, all the changes Westeros has undergone means they've entered a new era where the King is massively weaker than ever before. Unless Bran will train his successor to be a 3 Eyed Raven and can ensure they get elected, and uses his powers a fuckton to ensure stability, the 7 kingdoms will continue to suffer from rebellions, power struggles and civil wars.

TL;DR: The establishment of an Elective Monarchy without changes to other power structures, coupled with an independent North, is a literal guarantee for the "Game of Thrones" to become a regular entrenched part of Westerosi life.

1949 points1950 points1951 points submitted 4 days ago*by BoscoltNo man is as accursed as the Hypeslayer22

This wasn't a downer ending. This wasn't even bittersweet. I don't want anyone to quip that "If you were looking for a happy ending etc" line again without being immediately shut down because doesn't apply anymore.

Excluding what happened to Dany, this is a downright happy ending. How is this bittersweet when everyone pretty much forgets about Dany in the next scene over and Jon's exile in the Night's Watch is pretty much temporary until everyone regrows a brain and remembers that the Unsullied sod off to Naath so there's no one left to enforce his exile?

On Bran:

Bran. This deserves an entire post on how ridiculous it was. No doubt until if ADOS is ever released, there will be endless deserved railings on it by completely justified fans.

The remembering stories thing is such a inept justification for him taking the throne. First of all, almost none of the people at the Dragonpit would've known what in the world Tyrion was talking about. Second, if 'stories' were what makes a good King (what a completely asinine closing moral from the series on leadership), the Maesters of the Citadel would've been tripping over themselves running to the Dragonpit.

The idea that the lords of the realm would've allowed an omniscient person to become their liege instead of a puppet-king after all the conflicts in the past years derived from the power of the crown is senseless and illogical.

The entire moral stick that was beaten into our memory for the past 3 episodes is that for some reason, only someone who 'doesn't want to be king would be a good king', which is a fanciful Arthurian-esque modern delusion on leadership triped out on job interviews for management positions that has little historical basis. The entirety of world history's best leaders were, to a tee, ambitious people who strived for roles of leadership.

The further problem is the show completely diverges from their own narrative by choosing Bran, who from his past actions is clearly not impartial. Taking his line of "Why else would I come all this way" into thought, he becomes a downright sinister character. It was his initial act of telling Sam and then when Sam's emotions against Dany were highest to order him to inform Jon. Jon's cognizance of his true parentage is the spark that isolated Dany from everyone and drove her to 'madness.' His acts of inaction are now completely malicious, he could've told Dany about Euron's ambush, he could've stopped the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in King's Landing by telling Dany and the rest of the consequences of 'a disturbing vision where that future occurred' and how easy it was to simply storm the Red Keep.

His power as 3ER doesn't make him qualified to be King by itself, his path to getting the throne makes him a completely malicious actor and he's not a King the High Lords would be satisfied with because how can they have any autonomy with an omniscient king?

On Everyone Else:

Arya sods off to the Sunset Sea with no perceptible trauma or baggage and with a full crew despite it most likely being an one-way fools errand. The Faceless Men seem to be completely fine having her gallivant away smugly.

Jon is implied to become King Beyond the Wall until everyone remembers he can come back to the Seven Kingdoms (sorry, six kingdoms + the north). If Bran still wants to uphold the exile, Jon can simply go back to Winterfell which is beyond his jurisdiction since the crown gave away the North.

Sansa becomes queen of a independent North which somehow doesn't get Dorne and the Iron Islands to immediately secede. Recall that Dorne only joined the 7K because they married into the ruling family and that before, they were the only ones to resist the IT while the North bent the knee. Recall that Yara only joined Dany because she promised the Iron Islands independence and that with Dany's enemies now controlling the crown, Yara and the Iron Islands have no obligations to bend the knee back to the ruler of King's Landing.

Tyrion becomes Hand despite having been completely incompetent, which he admitted himself, and to prove his continued incompetence, fills the Small Council with completely unqualified people like Bronn and caps off his last scene talking about brothels when the entire country is war torn and the city itself is burnt down.

Bronn's little stunt is not only forgiven but for some reason taken seriously and rewarded by becoming not just Master of Coin (despite being corrupt with no qualifications) but also Lord of Highgarden (despite literally every House in the Reach seemingly having a claim to the Gardener's seat) and Lord Paramount of the Reach (despite the fact that people like Lord Hightower and others would outright rebel at being under the suzerainty of a lowborn up-jumped cutthroat) to cap it off.

So now, come to think of it, a Stark is in control of not only the crown of the 6K but also another is the ruler of an independent North that the other Kingdoms were completely fine with letting go (despite some of them having equally justified claims to independence).

In the end, Game of Thrones didn't give us a downer ending. It didn't give us a bittersweet ending because the only remotely 'bitter' thing is Dany's death whom was demonized enough in the past episodes that I'm not even sure if the show wants us to think it's something we should be really bitter about. Also, it was something of which everyone apparently got over in the next scene. (With the Dothraki turning into non-bloodthirsty pedestrians of King's Landing apparently.)

The ending we got was the Disney ending. The Fairytale ending. Literally the sailing away, walking away into the horizon ending. This was A Game of Stark Wanks.

I mean, the first one people do touch on, but not quite the same way I have an issue with.

1 - It's obvious that picking Bran was a double-ended 'surprise people' and 'wank off that we're writers who had a great story so deserve to be king', but in-universe the reasoning is just awful. There were people who complained that Jon shouldn't be a better candidate than Dany just because he lacked ambition, but him not having ambition was just a bonus.

He 'deserved' to be king not just because he didn't want it and not just because of his bloodline, but because he had experience leading people in both military and non-military situations, he was elected Lord Commander by his people, and then King in the North by his people - despite having no right to that title - and beloved by the Wildlings so much that they who would serve only one other person (and barely) were happy to hail Jon as a King. He has a raw charisma that connects with everyone he meets. Almost everyone ends up liking him, and if they don't it's usually because they have a personal problem of some sort. He has the love of his people, he's lived as a highborn but also as a misfit and reject of society, he's been a king and a Wildling, and his good nature and reputation would mean that at least most of Westeros would be content with him as a king if not openly supporting him (if Theon hadn't pointlessly died defending Bran, the Iron Fleet would have sided with him, not Dany, should it have come to it). Heck, even legendary creatures like direwolves and dragons seem to like him. The man doesn't want the throne, but people love him so much they keep shoving him into leadership positions - and generally when forced to lead he does a decent job of it, showing he also has leadership ability, not just love of people.

Bran has none of this. Bran did not really lead anything and lost Winterfell to Theon of all people. He has the personality of a wooden board and even his closest family members get creeped out dealing with him. No one is going to love Bran, he's not going to earn anyone's loyalty. He's just so blase about everything that even if he's working hard he's going to seem like he isn't and irritate people. All that he has is 'he doesn't want it' and 'he's so mild mannered some people might think he's Tommen 2.0 and easy to control'. It's terrible. Him being a Maester or Master of Whispers or something, sure, fine. He doesn't need leadership qualifications or the love of anyone to be useful there. Bran the Boring is not going to make a good king because his only appeal is 'he doesn't want it'. It's a bit sad that people reduced Jon's claim to the throne to him not wanting it just to make Dany look better, but don't really bring up that Bran is literally the thing they were complaining about, but without the noble backdrop.

(Also Edmure is mocked for deciding to vie for the throne and beginning to list off perfectly reasonable qualifications one might have for ruling. Excuse him for being practical, he wants the throne so he's an automatic 'no', apparently.)

2 - D&D were so determined to 'break cliches' and 'subvert expectations' that they trampled every romantic relationship in the entire series, and essentially any named relationship in their world. Go take a look at all the surviving characters we see onscreen in the finale. You may notice there are more than two people present. You may also notice there's only two people among the main cast (and honestly only one, Edmure shouldn't count) who are married.

Bran can't have children. Bronn has inherited the Reach but per this episode that is empty now, so has no wife lined up. Pod, Brienne, and Jon are sworn to celibacy, and there's no indication Jaime's super-seed worked on Brienne. Tyrion has explicitly stated that due to his hangups he can't bring himself to have sex - who knows, maybe they're implying he could with Sansa but they didn't bother to solidify it onscreen - Sansa is literally all alone in Winterfell, had awful marriages to everyone but Tyrion, has shown zero interest in anyone but him, and has not even a hint of who she might choose as a consort despite being Queen of the North. Arya decided she would stop being Hero of the North if she got married and it seems the Seed is Not That Strong with her either, so ran off without any indication of having any other man in the future, Gendry has shown interest in one person and got hard rejected - and Storm's End is apparently empty too. Robin has only shown interest in Sansa, and I'm thinking that's not going to happen. Yara - if she even likes guys in the show - has no male lined up at all for her, Tormund didn't appear to take the Winterfell girl with him, and got rejected by the big woman of his dreams. Davos - while he maybe?? has kids still? - is too old for more kids.

Heck, even the minor characters aren't indicated to have kids or marriages. Unnamed Prince is not mentioned to be married. Greyworm is going to die but also can't have kids and lost his girlfriend anyway. Daario despawned from being in an unloaded chunk. Ellaria and that Septa will just starve or something. Half the North, including the Mormonts, are just straight up dead.

Could they be married one day? Could they have kids one day? Sure. But it'd be even more stuff offscreen. And if they were then the argument that 'well if they settled down and got pregnant it'd be cliche!' is pretty dumb, because ...it happened anyway? Why is it less cliche if it happens offscreen?

I mean, look. Westeros is all about families, bloodlines, children and heirs. I get that somehow they think throwing the world into a crisis every time a king dies unexpectedly is somehow better than a line of succession, but every visible house at the end of the show is basically slated for destruction at this point. And the North is still following lines of succession, not a republic. Why is Sansa not getting married to unite the North, or ensure the South doesn't try to conquer the North later, or just to make sure the Starks don't die out when the handful of Stark kids left kick it?

Is Brienne's family okay that their daughter now can't inherit their lands or get married or mother children? Is House Tarly going to accept the child of a wildling and a member of the Night's Watch who renounced all claim to his lands (and didn't get freed by death)? Is everyone in the North okay with their heroes (Jon, Arya, and Sansa) having no children and not continuing their name or line? Why does Gendry being legitimized matter if he doesn't have a wife to continue the Baratheon name with? Why is it a good thing that the Lannisters and Starks will just end because of a lack of children instead of merging via marriage and children? Why should Arya refuse to raise up children to think like her instead and change the world by shaping its future generations? Can Edmure Tully really manage to repopulate the Riverlands all through the power of his own pelvic maneuvers?!

I think it's wild how the Starks can end up ruling the south, the north, the far north, and be the only ones going west (at least none ended up in Essos yet, maybe Arya will rule that when she finds out their world is round?) are completely believable, but unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy, or years of romantic feelings resulting in a marriage, that would just be cliche and unbelievable.

2.5 - I disdain the concept that Arya or Brienne or Sansa marrying or having children would somehow make them less warriors, less independent, or too 'feminine' somehow. It doesn't make men less manly or valorous to be married, so why do women get robbed of all development and become 'baby factories' or 'just about men' if they get married or have kids?